Reply
  • Sep 23, 2020

    I understand all artist want their masters for the money that it provides. However, most of these artist catalogs are worth what they are because of the label.

    The label promotes, hires producers, hires writers, pays for radio play, streams, videos etc...

    I get they are the talent but the label fronts cash so they can be popular. Signing the contract makes you an asset to the label that they in turn invest in. Then as in any business, they will want and deserve a return on investment.

    Why should the artist after the label makes them popular just feel entitled to their masters.

  • Sep 23, 2020
    ·
    9 replies

    Universal invading ktt

  • Sep 23, 2020
    Niggamortis

    Universal invading ktt

  • Sep 23, 2020

  • goretex 💁🏽‍♂️
    Sep 23, 2020
    ·
    3 replies

    man shut the f*** up

  • Sep 23, 2020

  • Sep 23, 2020
    Niggamortis

    Universal invading ktt

  • Sep 23, 2020

  • Sep 23, 2020

    post your opinion on the actual unpopular opinion thread

  • CKL TML 🌺
    Sep 23, 2020
    ·
    5 replies

    A record deal is a mutual agreement between company and artist. Artists should try to get better deals or just dont sign. Ktt wants labels to pay for everything and get a thank you

  • Sep 23, 2020

  • Sep 23, 2020
    Niggamortis

    Universal invading ktt

  • Sep 23, 2020
    CKL TML

    A record deal is a mutual agreement between company and artist. Artists should try to get better deals or just dont sign. Ktt wants labels to pay for everything and get a thank you

    I think this is a gross oversimplification

  • Sep 23, 2020
    goretex

    man shut the f*** up

  • Sep 23, 2020

    This is advanced bootlicking, man.

  • Sep 23, 2020
    ·
    1 reply

    Labels shouldn't do sneaky s*** to try and prevent artists from buying them back. But other than that I agree.

    At the end of the day, they are investing in artists.

    And if you aren't ok with giving up your masters or a portion of it, don't sign the contract. It's that simple.

  • Sep 23, 2020
    ·
    1 reply

    Lmao

  • Sep 23, 2020
    ·
    4 replies

    Y’all want people to be slaves so bad

  • Sep 23, 2020
    ·
    3 replies

    All labels should be required to offer a buyback plan for your masters after you have completed your contractual obligations. I get the label profiting during the time of the recordings and while the artist is dependent, but if you made more than half the artistic contribution to a song you should at some point be able to own the song in my opinion. Again after contractual obligations are met. No you shouldn’t have your masters in the middle of your contract unless you were able to broker that kind of deal.

  • Sep 23, 2020
    ·
    2 replies

    i see what youre saying, which is why id say the label owning the masters for a few years at most is fine. what the issue is that artists usually arent able to get their masters back EVER . why should the artist still be paying the labels 90% of their music income 50 years after their prime?

  • kainie 🌌
    Sep 23, 2020

    street teams invading

  • Sep 23, 2020

    i agree

  • CKL TML 🌺
    Sep 23, 2020
    Zezima

    All labels should be required to offer a buyback plan for your masters after you have completed your contractual obligations. I get the label profiting during the time of the recordings and while the artist is dependent, but if you made more than half the artistic contribution to a song you should at some point be able to own the song in my opinion. Again after contractual obligations are met. No you shouldn’t have your masters in the middle of your contract unless you were able to broker that kind of deal.

    True

  • Sep 23, 2020

    Yikes

1
2
...
12